Maze Pricing at a Glance
Maze prices its three-pillar UX research platform as a subscription, and the headline fact a buyer needs first is that Maze publishes no prices. The pricing page invites a free signup, compares plans by feature, and routes purchases beyond basic usage through a sales conversation. Maze’s help center states that AI-moderated studies are only available on Enterprise plans, so the capability most buyers compare against AI interview platforms sits on a custom-quoted agreement, with panel recruitment billed separately in credits. Earlier editions of this guide placed the AI Moderator on Business or Org plans near $15,000 per year per buyer-reported references; Maze’s help center and pricing page now place it on Enterprise and Maze publishes no figure, so read any annual number for it as a planning assumption until you hold a quote.
The structure rewards one buyer and penalizes another. A design team running continuous, high-cadence unmoderated usability testing amortizes the annual subscription well — the marginal study is effectively free once the seats are paid. A team running a handful of studies a year, or a team that mostly wants the AI-moderated capability, faces an Enterprise agreement and a sales process that make the cost per useful study high. The table below summarizes the structure per Maze’s pricing page, help center and buyer-reported references; treat any dollar figure for the Enterprise agreement as directional, because only Maze can quote a binding number.
| Component | Structure (per Maze’s pricing page and help center) | What the buyer should confirm |
|---|---|---|
| Plan comparison | Features compared by plan (“All plans”, “Limits apply”, “Enterprise”); no prices listed; “Contact sales” | Which plan holds the features you need; usage, seats and study limits |
| Free plan | ”Try Maze for free”; limited volume per buyer-reported references | Volume caps; whether AI Moderator is excluded (it is) |
| Prototype testing and reporting | Listed for all plans | Study and response limits |
| AI Moderator | Enterprise only per Maze’s help center; custom quote, with earlier buyer reports near $15K+/yr | Exact agreement price; response caps; term |
| AI study builder and interview studies | Listed as Enterprise features | Whether they sit inside the same agreement |
| MCP server | Enterprise; read-only per Maze’s help center | Whether write access is planned |
| Panel recruitment | All plans, limits apply; paid with credits ($5 each in bundles) | Credits per response by method and audience |
| Seats | Seats and usage are plan dimensions | Cost per additional seat |
| Contract | Not published on the pricing page | Term, billing, whether monthly exists |
| Free trial of AI | Not available: AI Moderator excluded from the free plan | Whether an Enterprise evaluation can be negotiated |
| Self-serve forecast | Not possible for AI moderation; panel credits are published | Quote turnaround time |
The Components of Maze Pricing
A Maze quote is the sum of three components, and a buyer who budgets only the first will under-forecast.
The first component is the plan and seats. Maze’s pricing page compares plans by feature and by usage, seats and studies. Free covers basic unmoderated usability testing at limited volume; paid plans raise the limits; Enterprise adds the AI moderator, the AI study builder and interview studies. Because Maze publishes no prices, the plan cost is a quote built from seats and usage, not a flat number.
The second component is AI Moderator gating. This is the component most buyers care about and the one the free plan excludes. Maze’s help center says AI-moderated studies are only available on Enterprise plans, so a buyer who signs up free, tests an unmoderated prototype study, and likes the platform still has not priced the capability that would let them run moderated-style research — that capability lives on an Enterprise agreement. Earlier buyer reports put AI Moderator access near $15,000 per year; Maze publishes no figure, so use that number only as a planning assumption.
The third component is the panel credit line. Maze’s panel (its pricing page cites over 5 million participants; its homepage says 6 million) and AI-powered recruitment are real reach, but each response is paid for in credits rather than bundled into the plan. Per Maze’s help center, credits are sold in bundles at $5 each (50 for $250, 100 for $500, 500 for $2,500), and an AI-moderated response costs 5 credits from the Core Network and the B2C Extended Network or 9 credits from the B2B Extended Network, which is about $25 or $45 per response. A team that brings its own community pays less here; a team that relies on Maze to source participants adds a recruiting line that grows with study volume. Budget the plan, the AI Moderator agreement and panel credits as three separate numbers, then sum them.
What Does a Maze Subscription Buy You?
Reframing the annual figure as a value bundle, a Maze subscription buys five things that, taken together, justify the price for the right buyer.
It buys a three-pillar integrated platform — Recruit, Research, and Analyze on one surface. A design team that would otherwise stitch a recruitment tool, a testing tool, and a reporting tool together gets them pre-connected, and the handoff cost between those steps drops toward zero.
It buys access to a participant panel of over 5 million people with AI-powered recruitment across B2B and B2C audiences. For behavioral usability testing, that is more reach than most prototype studies will ever need, and the AI matching shortens the time from study launch to a full participant set.
It buys AI features across all three pillars — recruitment matching, the AI Moderator, and AI-assisted insight synthesis in the Analyze pillar. On an Enterprise plan, the automation threads through the whole workflow rather than sitting in one corner of it.
It buys a Figma-anchored workflow. The Figma plugin converts a prototype into a testable study in a few clicks, and for a Figma-first design team that conversion is a genuine accelerant — the prototype the designer already built becomes the study with almost no rework.
It buys a multi-method UX suite — prototype tests, surveys, live website testing, mobile testing, card sorting, and tree testing in one tool. A research practice that runs all of those methods gets them under one subscription instead of buying a separate point tool for each. For the right design-led team, that bundle is worth the annual commitment; the question the rest of this guide answers is whether your team is that team.
How Does Maze’s Cost Scale by Research Frequency?
Because Maze is a subscription, its cost per study falls as study frequency rises — the opposite of a per-study model. The table below models the directional pattern, assuming an Enterprise agreement with the AI Moderator unlocked at an illustrative $15,000 a year, a planning assumption carried over from earlier buyer reports. Treat the figures as illustrative of the shape of the cost, not as a Maze quote.
| Studies per year | Maze (est., Enterprise + AI Moderator) | Effective cost per study | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ~$15,000+ | ~$15,000 | Annual floor paid for a single study |
| 2 | ~$15,000+ | ~$7,500 | Floor amortizes across two studies |
| 5 | ~$15,000-20,000+ | ~$3,000-4,000 | Panel credits begin to matter |
| 10 | ~$15,000-25,000+ | ~$1,500-2,500 | Subscription economics improve |
| 20 | ~$15,000-30,000+ | ~$750-1,500 | High-cadence sweet spot |
| 50 | ~$15,000-40,000+ | ~$300-800 | Marginal study near-free against the seat |
The pattern is clear: Maze’s per-study cost is punishing at low frequency and competitive at high frequency. A team running one or two studies a year pays roughly $7,500-15,000 per useful study. A team running fifty pays a few hundred. The annual floor is the fixed cost, with panel credits on top; the more studies it is spread across, the better it looks. The strategic read for a buyer: Maze’s pricing is a bet that your team will run a lot of usability testing. If that bet is right, the economics work. If the team runs research occasionally, the floor dominates and the cost per study stays high regardless of how good the platform is.
When Is Maze’s Pricing Worth It?
Maze’s pricing is worth it in four specific cases.
-
A Figma-anchored design team. If the team designs in Figma and the prototype-to-test conversion via the plugin removes real rework every sprint, the workflow acceleration is a recurring saving that offsets the subscription. The closer the team’s daily work sits to Figma, the better the value.
-
A multi-method UX research practice. If the team genuinely runs prototype tests, surveys, card sorts, and tree tests, buying them as one suite under one Maze subscription is cheaper and simpler than buying four point tools. The bundle value is real when all four methods are in active use.
-
An integrated recruit-research-analyze need. If the team’s current pain is the handoff cost between a recruitment tool, a testing tool, and a reporting tool, Maze’s one-hub architecture removes that friction, and the friction removed is worth a subscription line.
-
A behavioral-usability-priority team running high cadence. If the research questions are predominantly “does this interface work” and the team runs continuous, high-volume usability testing, the subscription amortizes well and the per-study cost falls into the competitive range.
If none of those four describe the team — if research is occasional, if the deliverable is motivational depth rather than behavioral metrics, or if a self-serve buyer needs to forecast cost without a sales call — Maze’s pricing structure works against the buyer, and the comparison below matters.
How Does User Intuition’s Pricing Compare?
User Intuition prices the inverse of Maze. Where Maze sells an undisclosed annual subscription with the AI Moderator on a custom-quoted Enterprise agreement and a separate panel-credit line, User Intuition publishes a per-study price that a buyer can forecast in a spreadsheet before any sales contact.
The numbers are public: $30 per voice interview, $60 per video customer interview, $15 per chat interview. A standard 10-interview voice study costs $300 in platform fees. There is no monthly fee and no annual contract, and recruiting is one published line rather than a separate invoice: bring your own participants and pay only the platform fee, or recruit from the 4M+ vetted panel, where a person vets every panelist by hand, at $30 per participant. A panel-recruited voice interview then costs $60 and a standard 10-interview study $600, with interviews in 80+ languages. Panel studies return themed results in 24 hours, and the panel holds 98% participant satisfaction. Every new account gets three free AI-moderated interviews on signup with no credit card; they cover the platform rate, and recruiting is billed separately on any study that uses the panel, so the depth capability itself is testable before any platform spend.
The structural difference is the direction the cost scales. Maze’s cost is fixed annually and falls per study as frequency rises — it rewards high cadence and punishes occasional use. User Intuition’s cost is variable and tracks usage linearly — a team that runs four studies pays for four, a team that runs forty pays for forty, and neither pays an annual floor. For a team whose research cadence is uncertain, lumpy, or low, that variability is the safer commitment. For a buyer who needs to know the number before a procurement cycle starts, the published price is the deciding factor. And because the AI-moderated capability is included at every tier rather than gated, there is no version of User Intuition’s pricing where the feature a buyer wants sits behind a separate, higher-priced plan.
How Do Maze and User Intuition Compare on Cost by Research Frequency?
The two models cross over at a frequency threshold. Below it, User Intuition is dramatically cheaper; above it, the gap narrows. The table assumes a 10-interview User Intuition voice study at $300 in platform fees and the illustrative Maze Enterprise estimate above; panel recruiting adds $30 per participant on the User Intuition side and panel credits on the Maze side.
| Studies per year | Maze (est.) | User Intuition (Starter, $300 per 10-interview study) | Practical read |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ~$15,000+ | $300 | ~50x gap — Maze’s floor dominates |
| 2 | ~$15,000+ | $600 | ~25x gap |
| 5 | ~$15,000-20,000+ | $1,500 | ~10-13x gap |
| 10 | ~$15,000-25,000+ | $3,000 | ~5-8x gap |
| 20 | ~$15,000-30,000+ | $6,000 | ~2.5-5x gap |
| 50 | ~$15,000-40,000+ | $15,000 | ~1-3x gap, plus Maze panel credits |
User Intuition figures above are voice platform fees for ten interviews per study. Recruitment and internal research work are additional.
The analytical point is not that one platform is always cheaper — it is that the two pricing models answer different questions. Maze’s subscription is a fixed bet on high cadence; User Intuition’s per-study price is a variable line item that matches spend to actual research volume. At fifty studies a year of pure behavioral usability testing, Maze’s amortized cost becomes competitive on the platform line alone, though panel credits still sit on top. At one to ten studies a year — the cadence of most product and research teams — User Intuition is multiples cheaper, and the buyer never pays for a study they did not run. The frequency-and-floor math, not the feature list, is what most often decides this comparison.
Calculate your team’s cost with the live slider — adjusts for interview count, modality, and panel choice in real time. Open the pricing calculator →
How to Choose Between Maze and User Intuition
The pricing choice resolves through two tables and one total-cost concept.
By research cadence:
| Your cadence | Better-priced fit |
|---|---|
| Continuous, high-volume usability testing (20+ studies/yr) | Maze — subscription amortizes |
| Occasional or project-based research (1-10 studies/yr) | User Intuition — no annual floor |
By what the buyer needs to forecast:
| You need… | Better-priced fit |
|---|---|
| The cost of AI-moderated research, knowable before a sales call | User Intuition — published, included |
| A single annual line item your design org already budgets for | Maze — if the org has the budget pattern |
Total cost of ownership. The sticker price is not the whole cost. A Maze buyer should add three things to the subscription line: the Enterprise agreement the AI Moderator requires if moderated research is in scope, the panel credits if Maze sources participants, and the calendar-time cost of a procurement cycle before the first study can run. A User Intuition buyer adds one line to the published per-study price — $30 per participant when the panel recruits — because the AI capability is included and there is no procurement step before the three free interviews, which cover the platform rate while panel recruiting is billed separately. The fair total-cost comparison is not $15,000 versus $300; it is the fully loaded Maze figure — plan, seats, AI tier, panel credits, procurement time — versus User Intuition’s published per-study line. For a low-to-mid-cadence team, that fully loaded comparison widens the gap, not narrows it.
Already Evaluating Maze? Run the Same Question First
If a Maze evaluation is already underway — especially if it has reached the AI Moderator and the Business or Org quote — the highest-leverage move this week is to run the same research question through User Intuition before the next sales call. Three steps.
- Paste the research question into User Intuition’s guided study setup. Use the same prototype task or research objective you would configure in Maze.
- Launch three free interviews — no credit card, no sales call, no gated tier; they cover the platform rate, and panel recruiting is billed separately. Live in five minutes with your own participants or the 4M+ vetted panel.
- Compare the output on four dimensions before the Maze quote arrives.
The four-dimension output evaluation:
- Depth — does the AI moderator ladder from a behavior down to the motivation behind it, or stop at usability follow-ups?
- Cost clarity — can you forecast the full cost from published numbers, or do you still need a quote?
- Recruit fit — does the 4M+ vetted panel reach the segments your study needs, with recruiting priced as one published line?
- Decision usefulness — would the themed output change a product or positioning decision your team is making this quarter?
Run the same question before the Maze quote arrives. Your three free interviews cover the platform rate; panel recruiting is billed separately. Start three free interviews → · Compare Maze vs User Intuition →
Bottom Line for Most Teams
Maze and User Intuition price two different research models, and the bottom line depends on which model the team runs.
Choose Maze if:
- The team runs continuous, high-volume unmoderated usability testing where the subscription amortizes
- The workflow is Figma-anchored and the prototype-to-test plugin removes real rework
- The practice genuinely uses the multi-method UX suite — prototype tests, surveys, card sorts, tree tests
- The organization already budgets for an annual design-tooling subscription and a procurement cycle is acceptable
Choose User Intuition if:
- Research is occasional, lumpy, or low-cadence, and an annual floor would be paid mostly idle
- The buyer needs to forecast cost from published numbers before any sales conversation
- The deliverable is motivational depth — why customers decide — not behavioral usability metrics
- The team wants the AI-moderated capability included rather than gated behind a higher tier
- Recruiting should be one published per-participant line, or free when you bring your own participants, not a credit bundle bought separately
For most product and research teams running one to ten studies a year, the pricing math points to User Intuition: published numbers, no annual floor, AI moderation included, recruiting priced per participant, and three free interviews that cover the platform rate so you can verify the depth before any platform spend. Maze remains the stronger-priced choice for the high-cadence, Figma-anchored design team that will genuinely use the integrated three-pillar platform every sprint.
Three free interviews cover the platform rate; panel recruiting is billed separately. No card. Published pricing you can forecast today. Try User Intuition → · Compare Maze vs User Intuition → · Read the Maze review → · 7 Maze alternatives compared →